Posted
by
Zonk
on Tuesday June 27, 2006 @10:48AM
from the i'd-get-on-that-guys dept.

Lord_Slepnir writes "The European Union is unsatisfied with Microsoft's compliance with their anti-trust compliance from 2004, and is preparing to fine them 2 million Euros ($2.5m US) per day until they comply. Under that ruling, Microsoft must open up parts of their operating system to competitors, and change how they bundle Media Player." From the article: "On Monday, Microsoft said it had begun to provide the information Brussels had demanded, but the Commission has signaled the company acted too late. In December, Brussels informed the software giant that it had failed to comply with the original ruling it issued in March 2004."

Scratch that. If I RTFA, I would know that that the warning which told them about fining them 2m Euro everyday was actually in December 2005. It was in relation to failing to comply with the 2004 ruling, but the fine was only mentioned in Dec '05.

One thing the article didn't mention however is that the fine can be issued retrospectively, i.e: if they issue the fine today it would be back-payable to December '05!

Seriously, it seems that the entire history of antitrust action against MS in the US and Europe has been a colossal waste of time and effort. All it has done is show that governments don't really have the teeth to cut into Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. I originally thought the DOJ action was going to curb MS, but it didn't.

When push came to shove, the US government wasn't truly prepared to make one of the crown jewels of American business suffer in order to make it change its ways. The EU is likely unwilling to push too hard for fear of invoking the wrath of the US government, which is just further proof that if a business becomes big enough, it can only very rarely be constrained by government.

Market forces are doing a far better job of constraining Microsoft. Perhaps if Microsoft's competitors hadn't relied on antitrust lawsuits to save them, they might have fought MS more aggressively and effectively in the past. Apple learned its lesson. Sun (belatedly) learned its lesson. The lesson is that the government isn't going to help you fight Microsoft, so you have to figure out a way to do it yourself.

In the US case, the justice department got a conviction against Microsoft. Then the Bush administration was sworn in, and the incoming DOJ whittled the punishment down into a "don't do it again, *wink* *wink*, *nudge* *nudge*."

In the European case, the EU is still finding its legs as an entity/pseudo-government. Any action they take against MS is going to be debated, re-debated, whined about, etc. They have the teeth, it's a question of whether they have the will to take a bite.

Where might I find the information indicating that it was due to the "Bush Administration", as opposed to life-long government workers that keep their jobs even when the President swaps out? If the directive came from a Bush-insider, or at least a Bush appointee, then your insinuation has some theoretical founding. If, however, the lack of strong punishment was directed by a long-term bureaucrat, or a Clinton appointee, then I suggest that criticism should be placed on those actually responsible.

"Where might I find the information indicating that it was due to the "Bush Administration", as opposed to life-long government workers that keep their jobs even when the President swaps out?"

I can't point you to the interview source, but Bush indicated in his first campaign, during a Press interview, that he believed the anti-trust suit against Microsoft should never have been brought. When he got elected, he then appointed an anti-trust chief who went on record saying he didn't believe in anti-trust. This same chief then resigned the position just days after his department essentially dismissed the case against Microsoft.

It's not a smoking gun, but Bush's fingerprints are all over the crime scene.

Seriously, it seems that the entire history of antitrust action against MS in the US and Europe has been a colossal waste of time and effort. All it has done is show that governments don't really have the teeth to cut into Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior

It's not that they don't have the teeth... it's that they don't have the BALLS! And sad to say, Europe is showing it has a helluva lot more balls than the US. Of course, this is mainly because lobbying is an industry of corruption here in the US. I'm honestly amazed that the EU hasn't been bought off yet or bribed into submission.

this is mainly because lobbying is an industry of corruption here in the US. I'm honestly amazed that the EU hasn't been bought off yet or bribed into submission

In the country where I currently live, France, 'lobbying' translates exactly as 'corruption' and is indeed illegal. Of course it still happens under the table (politicians will always be politicians, right ?).
As to the EU, I'd be curious to know what the stance is on this whole lobbying/corruption thing. Like they say:

Seriously, it seems that the entire history of antitrust action against MS in the US and Europe has been a colossal waste of time and effort. All it has done is show that governments don't really have the teeth to cut into Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. I originally thought the DOJ action was going to curb MS, but it didn't.

The Clinton admin had MS on the run but with the change in admin's things changed. The Bush admin went easy, and basically let MS go free.

And this is exactly why no corporation should ever be allowed to have such a huge influence on a specific field like MS has now on the os/sw market, and indirectly on everything else. I hope one day somebody will succeed in kicking MS in the ass - not because I dislike MS, but to show to everybody else that there are limits you should respect, no matter how much money you have.

If only there were another option; some kind of operating environment one could install on one's computer to do one's work. And maybe some other bits and pieces of software that could go with that environment that would still let one perform one's computer-centric duties.

If only there were some way we could get from beneath the crushing foot of this megacorporation and have the freedom to choose. To choose the programs that met our needs, our budgets, and our requirements.

I'm the same way, not a fan at all, but, I do wonder at what point, what would prevent MS from basically thumbing their nose at EU, and saying fine, we'll just withdraw all new products from you market...and if things got worse, just plain stop supporting the products currently out there in EU.

I would not guess it would be good for business, but, if MS has that much cash they're sitting on, and still can do business with the rest of the world...what would stop them from pulling this, and using that to leverage the EU into getting off their ass about this?

Sure, while it would seriously promote alternate OSes in EU, could the EU stand to have the carpet pulled out from under them in this manner considering how entrenched MS is in the world of computing..?

I would not guess it would be good for business, but, if MS has that much cash they're sitting on, and still can do business with the rest of the world...what would stop them from pulling this, and using that to leverage the EU into getting off their ass about this?

A problem with this is that Europe is a big market for Microsoft. Then there's also the possibility other regions or countries can follow their lead. Brazil for instance has been getting into open source a lot recently and it's gaining in India as well. Take a look at MIT's Nicholas Negroponte and his $100 Laptop [pcmag.com], part of a program to put a laptop in every child's lap. Something like this can be liability as well. If Microsoft doesn't try to work with programs like this, they could pull the carpet out from MS's feet.

"Sure, while it would seriously promote alternate OSes in EU, could the EU stand to have the carpet pulled out from under them in this manner considering how entrenched MS is in the world of computing..?"

I agree that it would hurt with regard to new computer sales etc... however MS cannot stop existing installations from working. I also assume that should MS decide that they do not want to offer updates to existing software in the EU, while providing them for the rest of the world, that the EU would sanction "illegal" copies of said updates within the EU.

Also, and probably more importantly, if MS did this (I am gonna take my ball and go home!) do you think that would be soon forgotten in EU countries? At that point MS becomes more of an enemy to the EU computing world than simply an 800lb gorilla. I think that should MS follow through with pulling out of EU it will probably result in MS not ever being able to re-enter that market; not due to political/legal problems but because people would not forget the way they were shunned by MS while MS was trying to make a point. In other words, if MS pulls out of EU, they have to consider the consequences with one of the most likely being that they could never re-enter that market in a substantial way again.

Now before the MS apologists vent let me say a couple things. No, right now there is no equivilant replacement to MS. As a result, how long do you think it would be before either emulation (aka wine) was improved to the point of being transparent to the end user or how long before a lot of other software manufacturers start porting to Linux*? The EU has too many potential sales to ignore which most likely means that MS can no longer convince software houses to remain loyal to the MS world view of software.

*I say Linux because it is the most sensible alternative. OSX does not run on generic (aka non-Apple) i386 and there are too many machines in place already. The BSDs are behind Linux in compatibilty with hardware and the amount of software written for Linux. I cannot think of any other OS that even approaches the maturity of Linux at this point.

So MS pulls out of the EU market. This is a government we are talking about. You know, the ones who make and enforce copyrights? They would be free to rule that, as a punishment, Microsoft's copyrights are no longer valid in the EU.

Well, my point is that it won't escalate that far. It's like MAD, MS knows Europe has the doomsday device, EU knows MS has the doomsday device, they both just play nice. Copyright laws are not international, in that any country can invalidate any copyright it wants to, and the Berne convention just means you have to treat copyrights in a certain way. No copyright, no problem. National laws still trump the WTO, too. Sure, there are sanctions, but there were trade wars before the WTO, this is just more of the

But showing that they were prepared to scupper their own customer base due to spite would stop ANY business that had continuity plans from EVER using Microsoft products again. Simply because you couldn't trust them.It would kill the company overnight.Pulling out of Europe would also mean anyone that does a lot of business with Europe (read China, India, and many other places that don't rely solely on the US) would need compatibility with Europe too.. Which means they'd be introduced to non-MS products.With Europe + rest of world (bar US, most likely) using non-MS products rather quickly, the US would soon find that to do business with the rest of the world, it'd have to be compliant with the non-MS standard that had arisen behind the world wide economy.Which would loosen the grip of MS in the US, eventually making it irrelevant.So, in other words, they could choose spite, and kill their whole company in a couple of years (while leaving a lot of pain in the wake for a short amount of time), or they can toe the line, open their API, and do what the EU asks, and then have to compete on innovation with the rest of the world. Which, with the brains in the MS research labs, I reckon they've got a good shot at doing. Like IBM, they'll be around for decades to come, but without the massive monopoly they have now.If I were running the company, I know which option I'd choose.

Actually, I think I am seeing the bigger picture. If MS were to do such a thing as deny updates to their insecure products, do you think the EU would hesitate for one second to allow (if they didnt set them up themselves) independent (from MS) update servers? As far as disabling existing installations, that would be pretty ballsy even for MS. MS would incur the wrath of the WTO at a minimum; not to mention there are already (illegal) patches to bypass Windows authentication et al. In fact, should MS go that

Sure they could do all that, but that would tell the governments in the rest of the world that Microsoft really can't be trusted. Governmnets in many parts of the world are allready leaning towards Open Source to make sure that they can stay in control of their information structure. Microsoft doing something like this would be the final proof that these governments were right.

Once governments leave the windows business, large government contractors and their subcontractors will follow. This would hurt Microsoft much more than it would hurt EU. To EU it would mean one or two years with a lot of hazzle, while applications was wineified, ported to e.g. Linux, or replaced with software running on MacOS-X, To Microsoft it would mean the end of their dominance on the desktop world wide. In turn that would also mean that they would lose their grip on hardware venders, nobody is prepared to lose a big market like Europe just to ship products that only runs windows.

So, we can be quite sure that Microsoft will either pay their fines, or comply. There is really nothing to worry about.

Microsoft is the mafia boss running the protection racket, the OEM vendors are the shop owners, and the EU is the FBI coming in to tell Microsoft to just not set fire to business who don't buy into the 'insurance' plan. To be fair, I can see the point you're trying to make, but Microsoft would have had to have been playing fair and not abusing a monopoly position for them to be the shop owners paying protection money to EU mafia.

From the article"Brussels also ordered Microsoft to provide rivals with enough information to develop software that could run as smoothly as its own on servers running Microsoft's Windows operating system."

I believe the EU has asked for all the information necessary to emulate and reproduce windows networking code. so either Microsoft has to just give the source code of they have to write an all new document that explains every little thing that the networking code does and how it is executed (might as well

No, it's the documentation of the interfaces and protocolls MS is supposed to publish (and keep up-to-date with further updates, of course), not the source code. Documentation, as somebody else pointed out, MS (hopefully) already has.

Now, the source code is the implementation of those protocolls. If MS manages to supply the market with the best implementation, MS will keep the market. If not, it will lose it (or at least some parts of it) to the competition.

On the other hand, if MS keeps their protocolls secret, changing them every now and then just so that the reverse engineering efforts of the competition get undermined, the quality of the implementation MS provides is largely of no importance, because there is no NEED for MS to improve it.

I am sure you see in which of the above two cases the consumer is a winner, and in which the consumer is just a silent cash-cow, forced to update from time to time, and with no chance to ever come out of being dependent on one (and only one) company.

You are way off here. Europe is not just a 'Big Market' for Microsoft.

If MS was to make 2 mill a day in EU, but fined 2.5 mill a day, it would be best to just move out, right?

Or do you think that the loss of support for all of Europe might have a mass effect on the world market? These days most corporations have large divisions in Europe, or interact with counterparts in europe. If EU was forced to switch to anything but MS, large parts of the outside world would also.

Not to mention, that if an entire continent showed it was capable of being productive without the juggernaught that MS is, the rest of the world would soon follow the example.And dont think that MS leaving EU would cause them to just callapse in onto themselves or something, just a big setback to start.

Of course, Microsoft knows thats not even an option, and it'll never happen.

These days most corporations have large divisions in Europe, or interact with counterparts in europe. If EU was forced to switch to anything but MS, large parts of the outside world would also.

is a bit of a misnomer, because large corporations with divisions in Europe likely have access to MS products elsewhere - the original theory was that MS wouldn't sell products in Europe, not use them. Besides, just because a European business can't

What MS does not need right now, is for OSS/linux to flow into a market and be the main player. If Europe makes the leap to OSS, they will no doubt create loads of software companies. Some of these will be OSS, but I would guess that most will be closed. And most likely they will have no competition, but a HUGE market to sell to. At that time, the American companies will have no choice but to move into the Linux/OSS world. At that point, MS has lost not only a bit of business, but their monopoly. Game Over.

Sure, while it would seriously promote alternate OSes in EU, could the EU stand to have the carpet pulled out from under them in this manner considering how entrenched MS is in the world of computing..?

The EU would stand just fine. There would be a lot of grumbling from big business, to be sure, but within a year I guarantee you that they will develop Euro-Linux which would in time completely flatten MS on both sides of the pond. Remember, EU countries tend to have very high tax rates and are extremely protectionist--if MS really wants to play hard ball, I have a feeling Europe will do just fine. Transitioning will be a bit rough, but I'm sure that piracy will help a lot--in such a situation, I'm sure that EU authorities won't be in any big hurry to crack down on MS software piracy.

Microsoft may be a big, bad, successful company with a mighty war chest, but that doesn't mean they can take on an entire continent. Take a look at Ubuntu's latest release and tell me with a straight face that XP/2000 is really soooooo much better for business or personal use (other than heavy gaming.) It's easier to install than XP, and more stuff "just works" out of the box than on XP! (at least it does on all 5 of my machines)

Microsoft's biggest asset is momentum, and if they tried to strongarm the EU they'd be flushing that asset right down the toilet. Personally, I'm really really hoping that they try it.

Microsoft's dominance, for the most part, comes from the network effect - that fact everyone else uses Windows means that everyone has to use Windows. (Has is a strong term, given the degree to which commoditization of standards has occurred over the last few years, but it's still pretty much the case)

If Microsoft were to withdraw from the EU, the net effect would be that that network effect would disappear. As people are forced to use GNU/Linux and other alternatives, interoperability would be forced.

No, the part about 'if they comply right away' was supposed to end in the beginning of february iirc. They didn't, dragged some foot, released some gibbrish, and now they need to pay the daily fine imposed on them starting from the end of 2004 til now.

People want enriched OSes. They do not want an OS that is specified only as a kernel, with everything optional. To them an OS is a UI, and a web browser and so on. Linux isn't the Linux kernel, it's that + the shell tools + X + Gnome + Firefox and so on. Windows is hardly unique in specifying an OS in an enriched context. MacOS is the same way, as is Solaris.Now the other side of this is that programs depend on the services the OS provides. They don't reinvent the wheel all the time, they use what's there.

Heh, that is over 900 million a year (and I believe this fee is retroactive). I'd like to see *any* corporation justify to its stock holders that they are blowing nearly a billion a year (unless of course Microsoft realized significantly more buisness oppurtunities as a result).Either way, I'm sure the EU wouldn't mind a billion extra on the books.Regards,Steve

Now THAT is a lot better... Than the limited (though enormous) fines the EU was talking about the last time. Last I recall, the total fine was around 50 million dollars.

You're a little confused. The fine has remained 2.5 million a day, but it started racking up quite a while ago, so the payment due is now well over 50 million and going up by 2.5 million a day. The EU has just delayed collection of the fine for a while.

It's all a questions of respect. The US government barked, but when it came to biting, they didn't. As a result, MS does not and will probably not ever again have respect for them.

Apparently, someone in the EU has some soft skills and knows that at this stage it isn't about being right or wrong or fair or blablabla. If the EU doesn't bite after making so much noise about it, they'll have a hard time ever getting MS to comply with anything.

Keep in mind, that the US had a regime change between the bark and the bite. MS has not been able to find the right politician or political office to influence in the EU to make this go away.

In the US, under Clinton, there was an overwhemling victory against MS. When the judge could not keep his mouth shut and the case was up for retrial, under Bush, the government struck a sweetheart deal.

I, personally, did not see any problem with a judge calling a bunch of criminals, criminals, after he had seen all the evidence, but hey, what do I know, I live in the real world.

So they fine MS... assuming MS actually pays (seems kind of unlikely), what are they going to do with the cash? I RTFA and it didn't mention it. I'd love to see it go to aiding the folks that MS's anticompetitive tactics have hampered, but how would that work? Or would they give it to charity, use it to lower taxes a tiny bit, something positive for people?

Under that ruling, Microsoft must open up parts of their operating system to competitors, and change how they bundle Media Player.

Just for clarification before anyone gets on their soapbox about how Microsoft shouldn't have to open their code to competitors, that is not the parts that the EU wants. They want MS to dislose API type information so that competitors can better interface with Windows. i.e. Samba.

Thank for your recent letter. Regretfully, we must decline your offer of your special edition software and its license.

Apparently you are not aware of our country's recent legislation addressing software license rules. In order for a software company to legally sell ANY software in our country, it will now be required to provide, free of charge, a number of fully licensed copies of said software to the government, that number to be determined by the government and revised at the government's discretion.

(Having a monopoly sure sounds like fun. But writing your own laws is even more fun, we think!)

"Microsoft must open up parts of their operating system to competitors, and change how they bundle Media Player."

This is ambiguous and misleading commentary. MS has been ordered to document the APIs of the interaction between their monopoly desktop OS and their non-monopoly server OS to allow competition. This is not "opening up" any part of their OS. They have not been asked to provide any source code and in fact they offered source code as an alternative to the documentation (under terms that would have gutted the benefits of the punishment) and it was rejected as unsatisfactory. To reiterate, MS was not ordered to open up any code, only to provide documentation on the interaction of their OS's.

The fine itself is relatively modest. But think of the knock-on effects that charging it will have.

The fine will inevitably hit Microsoft's profitability. That in turn will hit their stock price, as a company already struggling to increase profitability, whose stock is traded in a market already very cautious about the value of the US dollar and interest rates. If MS stock prices start to slide, then that will have three dramatic effects.

Microsoft has about $35 Billion in the bank. At $2,510,800 per day, that works out to about 38 years with its current cash. I'm thinking that the EU might want to up the fine if they want Microsoft to take them seriously.

MS is not as financially well off as many might think. Sure $35 billion is a lot of money, but MS's expenses are about $9 billion a year. All it would take is 4 unprofitable years and that cash is gone. Not likely but not impossible.

This means on July 12, they will need to pay 209 * 2.0M EUR = 418.000.000 EUR, or 524.339.200 USD. Following that initial payment, they will continue to pay 2 million EUR each day.

It doesn't state anywhere whether the fine applies only to business days, or also to weekends and holidays. I've assumed it also applies to weekends and holidays since the laws are just as applicable on these days as on any other day.

Just let the market sort it out: do NOT grant companies protection for patents, copyrights, reverse engineering. Then the problem will solve itself.

Many people are against monopolies, including myself. In fact I think monopolies are one of the few areas where state intervention is needed in the economy. However, even most monpolies only come to life and continue to exist not because the state doesn't do something against them, but because the state SUPPORTS them. They are supported by laws regarding patent, copyright, trade restrictions (e.g. against imports) and lately even against reverse engineering. Without such harmfull state intervention in the market, not many monopolies would survive for long.

The EU need only abolish copyrights, and the problem shall be quickly solved.

What are the chances of this being simply an excuse to generate a $2.5 million per day revenue stream for the EU government?

Zero. The revenue is doubtless a nice bonus but what matters most to governments is power. Microsoft has decided to defy the collective requrements of the sovereign governments that make up the EU, while operating in their markets. They're not going to let Microsoft get away with that if they can possibly help it. That's all the motive they need.

Microsoft has had to issue numerous press releases saying they can't figure out what the EU wants them to do, and that the EU is just punishing them for making such a great operating system. They've had to pay for numerous "independent" studies to prove that showing several million lines of unreadable source code is the same as documenting an API. Haven't they suffered enough?!?!

If that were the case, they'd be making it as difficult as possible for Microsoft to comply with their demands instead of telling them exactly what they are doing wrong and giving them years to correct their mistake.

I know it's trendy to accuse the EU of being greedy and anti-American, and I don't deny that the money will be happily spent, but that doesn't mean Microsoft isn't breaking the law and it doesn't mean the EU aren't right to fine them.

Microsoft could easily avoid these fines by complying with the court ruling. They have chosen to make every effort to avoid doing so, and these fines are the result.

not really, some of the Samba guys are on those independent committees for the EU, so they know EXACTLY what they are needing as far as documentation. It's a running joke that the interface for windows printer and file sharing is so messed up the current MICROSOFT devs occasionally need to dig out the documentation from the open source [and reverse-engineered] Samba project to figure out how to do their jobs... on the REAL source code. One clarification too, the EU did NOT demand MS to open up their source code.. that would mean giving up IP... they only required an Open, freely available, no-strings-attached, documentation of how window file and print sharing [plus authentication and a few other things] work.. had it had to be usable.. both technically and legally. MS instead dumped millions of lines of source, under NDA, and a steep licensing fee.... somebody's deliberately not hearing the question.. and it's not the EU.

I know myself as a Windows developer that WINE can be an invaluable resource to understanding how the Win32 API works. For the most part the APIs in Windows are fairly well documented, but occasionally you'll come across one which takes a LPVOID which could be one of many structures, all of which have flags, and size members and not enough documentation, or it doesn't make clear who allocates or releases what, or has some flag with a meaningless name and description. WINE can help a lot in those situations.

if i was MS i would have said fuck it by now.. and pull out of the EU completely.

I see. So you would break your agreements with thousands of international customers (like every major company in the world since they all have european offices) while at the same time abandoning 20 billion dollars in profit a year to avoid paying.7 billion in fines? And you'd do thins knowing you'd be instantly creating your own biggest competitor by handing a third of the market to other parties. You'd be fired before the day was out, since the board of directors can do math. You might be shot if they're feeling spiteful about the billions you managed to cost them in the confusion and bad PR. If nothing else you'd be a wanted criminal in so many nations the US would almost have to deport you.

the EU have been draging[sic] this out making it imposiable[sic] for MS to settle it..

The EU wants the APIs documented well enough to provide for fair competition as judged by the expert MS chose. MS hasn't bothered to do that, because they make more money breaking the law. What they have done is proposed a number of solutions that won't restore competition and spent a lot of money on press in the hopes that they can put pressure on the EU by spreading lies, like the ones you are parroting. How exactly can you think their documentation is in compliance when it has not been released and the expert MS chose says it isn't?

ok so how do you explain the opening of the source.. sure you have to register/pay for it but it is there.

The source was not as easy to use to create a fresh re-implementation as the API docs. In fact, the licensing pretty much made it legal suicide to try to re-implement after viewing the source. Further, the license made it so MS's biggest competitors, Solaris and Linux could not have integrated the code since it purposely excluded software with their licenses. How exactly does that make for a level pl

Microsoft would most likely have daughter companies set up and located in each and every country in EU including with emplyed personal and so on. Were the headquarter is located is in that aspect quite irellevant. Sure, Microsoft can theoretically completely extinct itself from EU and not have any legal precense at all, the chance for that would be zero I would say.

"Microsoft is headquartered in the US. I don't think the EU has the authority to simply demand money from them."

Microsoft is a multi-national conglomerate doing business in many nations around the world. As such, they are requires to obey the laws and accept the sanctions imposed by every country or, in the case of the EU, group of countries they do business in.

"Sure, they can kick 'em out of the country, but MS should call their bluff."

Sure they should. Then the EU should simply impound all of MS's European assets, and strip them of all patent and copyright protection, thus allowing Europeans to install their new open source, free operating system quite legally under the laws of the EU.

When you grow up you'll realize that there are other countries, legal systems, and ways of looking at things than the US's. BTW, as I pointed out before, the EU is a GROUP of countries... your statement about "kick them out of the country" berely underscores your ignorance.

Microsoft is a multi-national conglomerate doing business in many nations around the world.

Indeed. Moreover, a lot of people from the US who lurk around here don't seem to appreciate how small their market is compared to the rest of the world. The US may have the world's single biggest national economy (though not by far, depending on the metric you use) but compared to, say, Europe as a whole, it's not so much. Losing most or all of its European income would basically kill Microsoft overnight. Of course, in the current economic climate, it could also trigger the freefall meltdown that the world economy is in grave danger of falling into any time now.:-(

Only where it's applicable. If Microsoft has no Copyrights in the countries in question either because of an oversight or because they've been stripped of them, then the Berne Convention doesn't apply and the WTO won't directly intervene. If you didn't know, even in the US, they may strip a rights holder of their rights if they're guilty of using the same to violate the Anti-Trust Acts. It just doesn't happen all that often.

"Contrary to what some Europeans and by extension Euro-philes seem to believe, the vast majority of Americans do realize that the US is not the only country in the world."Yeah, but at the other hand, more then 1 out of ten of adult Americans can't find their own country on a worldmap.

And it's not like it's a *small* country.

"Way to propogate untrue American stereotypes."

Well, not *completely* untrue, it would seem. While stereotypes have the disadvantage to be generalising as if every last (in this case) Am

Microsoft is headquartered in the US. I don't think the EU has the authority to simply demand money from them.

As a matter of authority, that is a prima facie right of sovereignty [wikipedia.org]. It is enforceability that is at issue, a practical matter. The EU can seize Microsoft assets therein, and elsewhere through the Doctrine of Comity [wikipedia.org] and any reciprocity treaties.

Interestingly, and more fundamentally, Microsoft's assets exist only and precisely because sovereigns grant them. These are known as vested rights (or acquired rights), and exist only by way of a sovereign's decision to limit their own power, vis-a-vis the Magna Carta [wikipedia.org].

The American line of reasoning, bottom-up rights of a constituent superceding natural rights of the state is based upon experiences from a long history of absolute sovereignty that arose from the Peace of Westphalia [wikipedia.org]. (Which was more interested in sovereignty and self-determination as against other states) These acquired rights should not be taken for granted in America, or elsewhere.

That's all pedantic, but underscores the model of law Microsoft is subject to. Their property rights are acquired from sovereign grants, not absolute entitlement, and their rights can be quashed within the EU as a matter of implicit state power, and without as a matter of international relations, notwithstanding the limitations the EU imbues upon its own powers.

What sovereigns? First of all the Magna Carta was an English document that pertained only to England, not Europe as a whole (the UK is about 10% of the population of the EU), and second of all the Magna Carta has been almost entirely revoked, several times in fact.

Let me suggest a definition:

vis-a-vis (n)
1. a person or thing having the same function or characteristics as another

Hence: Magna Carta is a historical example of cessation of absolute authority, and while perhap

Spread your FUD elsewhere. They are fining them what the law allows for the same crime the US just ruled them failing to comply with their punishment for. Are you claiming the US is biased against MS too?

I guess I'm looking for trouble by saying this on Slashdot, but I think the EU's reasoning on this issue is faulty, and I think it's an old-fashioned money grab.

They're breaking the law. The US convicted them of it. The EU did too. So did several other nations. They have failed to comply with their punishment. If the EU does not act, they are stating to the world that they won't or can't enforce their own laws. For a fledgling organization like the EU, this would be devastating. If you convict someone of robbery and they escape from the prison instead of serving their time and then stroll into town and tell everyone they aren't going to accept the punishment since they don't want to, the law bloody well better act if they want to be taken seriously, ever.

Good thing I'm not in charge of Microsoft. Out of spite I'd have pulled up stakes of everything in the EU, save for a distribution warehouse.

I love it how The Slashdot GroupThink questions the validitiy and constitutionality of laws such as the DMCA, copyright laws, IP laws, etc., but when it comes down to anti-trust laws, there is NO debate, whatsoever, and people such as yourself continually just parrot "They broke the law! They broke the law!". Nice.

They're breaking the law. The US convicted them of it. The EU did too. So did several other nations. They have failed to comply with their punishment. If the EU does not act, they are stating to the world that they won't or can't enforce their own laws.

What the rest of the world did or did not decide is irrelevant. What I disagree with is the "failed to comply" portion. After reading both sides (including those long-winded PDF submissions from both sides), I think the EU's original demands were unclear to the point of unusability, and that Microsoft, in this case, has actually strived to comply. I think the EU has made a game of making Microsoft "guess", and then saying, "BZZT! WRONG! We didn't mean that, but we're not going to clarify much either. Try again. Oh, and your time is up."

I think the EU's reasoning on this issue is faulty, and I think it's an old-fashioned money grab.

On the first: MS has (again) been convicted in a court case.

On the second: Maybe, but then again so is speeding tickets and parking fines. When the crime doesn't warrant throwing someone in jail, or you can't because the "someone" is a corporation, then the only thing left is fines, because in the western world we abandoned the whip, cutting-off-of-fingers and other fun punishments a few centuries ago.

Microsoft has been screwing us with the price for years. I mean... follow the price of every new version of Windows and it doubles in price each release for very little. The only reason they raise the price that much is because they KNOW people will pay the high prices for no real gain. Now, if any other business were to do the same thing people would scream price gouging and never buy... but no.... it is for some reason different because its Microsoft.

That... and bad business practices are why I do not like Microsoft. I mean, the Caldera vs Microsoft lawsuit in which microsoft caused FAKE error messages after it detected another version of dos ASIDE from MS DOS even there there was technically nothing wrong? If that does not scream crap business practice I dont know what does. It happened again recently where people complained the MSN web site looked like crap in Opera. Someone running linux found out that using wget to download the msn web site identifying itself as IE shows that the hiccups were on purpose the even THOSE web sites looked like crap in IE. Microsoft settled with Opera outside of court because of their deep pockets. Opera SHOULD have kept up the lawsuit.

Like it or not Microsoft is not the honest company you think they are and they should be fined harshly.

Lets say a company like Dodge (auto company) had a monopolistic influence over the auto industry (they dont.. but lets just pretend) and they tell all of the auto manufacturers that they will provide the Hemi engine FOR FREE to all of them. Now, because of their monopolistic presence, all of the companies dump EVERY OTHER engine manufacturer because of a) their name, and b) the free price... then you would see LOTS of people and lots of states getting ready to sue Dodge. Primarily because the states and the government have a lot to gain from LOTS of other companies making competing engines. In this hypothetical example, Dodge would put the engine making industry in danger and you would see states and even other countries sue dodge.

Because they are criminals that harm everyone and the computing industry in general with their crimes and because they have participated in the corruption of the US government by paying huge bribes to both major parties campaign funds to have the case against them gutted.

Doesnt Win amp run as good as media player does on windows?

How is this relevant?

No matter what you say if microsoft withdrew all support and products from europe their[sic] would be some nasty consiquences[sic].

Yeah, but they would be nasty mostly for MS.

It would take some time for all servers and desktops to be tranistioned[sic] to linux.

So, what would be the rush? Is MS going to try to get people in Europe arrested for pirating their software? Yeah, I'm sure the EU will get right on that. They'd probably revoke all of MS's trademarks, copyright, and patents in Europe, making Windows source code available freely.

then would come trying to deal with the u.s and other countries that still use microsoft.

Do you think other countries would not follow Europe's lead when MS failed to comply there? Do you think no one could manage to save as PDF, or use open office to open Word files?

It would be very bad if microsoft took everything out of Europe.

Yeah, that 10 minutes before the emergency conference call of MS's board would be pretty bad. Then the CEO would be removed and they'd go back to complying with the law. No one walks away from 20 billion in profit to avoid paying.7 billion. No one creates a huge market for their competitors, while undermining the monopoly that lets them make those outrageous profits. No one breaks their contracts with every major multinational in the world and expects to walk away from it. MS may be wealthy, but compared to the huge companies they would be screwing over they are a minnow in the ocean.

For you video game junkies that would include the Xbox 360

It's just one more market they are trying to make headway in that they would be crushed in.

I am starting to feel the EU is just trying to extort money out of microsoft. Microsoft has been giving them what they want from what I have seen and they still are asking for money.

Stop reading the MS press releases as news. No really, I'm serious. MS has not complied and have not documented the APIs well enough to allow competitors to compete on even footing. This is as judged by the expert MS picked to make this decision. Since you haven't seen the docs and he has and given his expertise and credibility, what possible reason could you think you have for being a better judge than he is? MS press releases can say what they want, but if you believe they are true and unbiased then you are complete fool.

I agree, i say let's leave the conclusions to those that actually have all the facts.Let's see whether they think that the problem is the lack of good programmers...(..reading TFA..)well, there it is: apparently they believe that it is the lack of proper protocol documentationthat causes the "sub-par performance of third party applications on Microsoft server software".At least we cleared this one up.

i hope microsoft tell the EU to shove their "easy money" sceme, thats all the EU want, microsoft's money.

So, what you're suggesting is that the judge in this case has looked at the EU's budget, decided, say that the French tourist industry could do with a subsidy, and fined Microsoft so he could pay for it. Or do you think the council of ministers ordered the court to make this ruling? Government organisations don't work like that. The EU does not think with one mind. We're not the borg!